Welcome to DuelistGroundz
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!

Javascript Disabled Detected

You currently have javascript disabled. Several functions may not work. Please re-enable javascript to access full functionality.

Hieratic/Dragon Ruler - Discussion

Patrick Hoban

Posted 22 January 2014 - 02:12 AM

Patrick Hoban

The Forbidden One

Duelist

10032 posts

I agree with Dubk, I Currently run Fire Fist and I much more scared of that sacky shit Standard OTK YOLO Hieratics than I am of this grindier Dragon Ruler Variant. People were actually hoping to go against Hieratic Rulers. Frazier Smith on FB deemed it free wins in future events. This deck has a lot more work to do.

Frazier said the same thing about Dragons last format and how much better Spellbooks were. That clearly wasn't the case as Dragons were more dominant than Tele-DAD.

And I don't see how the name drop thing is to be considered. Like oh okay, well I happen to have an opinion as well.

Urthor

Posted 22 January 2014 - 02:16 AM

Urthor

Earth-Or

+War Captain+

12925 posts

Fire is literally just playing Dragons against backrow. How do you lose when your cards come free and theirs don't?

because you're playing a deck that doesn't generate plays until it pushes a combo through, and if you lose the die roll game one or don't put down a turn 1 combo, you're instantly playing a game of your defence vs their defence, and they can normal summon bears and attack and play through defence far better than you can play through a set 4 pass. This deck just doesn't get to the edragons that easily, sure you win if you set them up, sure that's a simple win condition, but it doesn't mean that pushing it through is easy or that it always works.

Paraliel

Posted 22 January 2014 - 02:18 AM

Paraliel

Angel of Inevitability

+Ancient Moderoid

7501 posts

The Hieratic combo is definitely not the scariest part of the deck, it is dealing with Skill Drained rulers which most people have realized. Atum is super easy to counter and the argument that playing against backrow decks where you rely on cards that need to stick on the field is silly.

Once you deal with the Rulers or the Skill Drain in this deck, you are suddenly in a winning position. Cards like D.D. Crow also help mitigate the free cards that your opponents are allowed to summon, as well as cards like Bottomless.

Paraliel

Posted 22 January 2014 - 02:19 AM

I'm just saying I generally value my opinion more than any other if I've put the time into actually forming one. I don't think anybody is thinking about this deck the right way.

How else are people supposed to think of it than a deck designed to fuel Dragon Ruler effects and also play the Hieratic cards to fuel it and make good plays with cards like Trident? I understand that the Dragon Ruler cards are unfair, but its not as simple as dumbing it down to "Hey my cards are free and yours aren't!"

Paraliel

Posted 22 January 2014 - 02:24 AM

Paraliel

Angel of Inevitability

+Ancient Moderoid

7501 posts

Also your Dragon Rulers can get taken by Silent Honors and they can protect that. The only two Dragon Rulers that are even hard to get over are Redox and Blaster. Tidal and Tempest aren't even real threats as your monsters can beat those out.

Patrick Hoban

Posted 22 January 2014 - 02:25 AM

I'm just saying I generally value my opinion more than any other if I've put the time into actually forming one. I don't think anybody is thinking about this deck the right way.

How else are people supposed to think of it than a deck designed to fuel Dragon Ruler effects and also play the Hieratic cards to fuel it and make good plays with cards like Trident? I understand that the Dragon Ruler cards are unfair, but its not as simple as dumbing it down to "Hey my cards are free and yours aren't!"

Yu-Gi-Oh actually just is that simple.

Dragons are good. I'll play them.

Vanillas suck. I'll play 1 because I have to.

My cards are free and yours are not. I have an advantage.

Doing things like using 2 cards to make Star Eater is much to fair to play.

Nebthet sucks because it doesn't have synergy.

All very simple concepts. Just because a card has an application doesn't mean it's a good one and it certainly doesn't mean it outweighs the downsides. I actually don't think it's possible to convince me that drawing a vanillas twice as often is worth whatever you think it does when you draw one with Tefnuit. I'll just play better cards and not lose to bricking.

Patrick Hoban

Posted 22 January 2014 - 02:29 AM

Do you know what Seal does? It actually lets you summon a free card every turn. You aren't going to have a free backrow to match it every turn.

Yes, I do happen to know what Seal does thank you. Did you know when your Dragon Rulers aren't in your Graveyard you can't summon them? Amazing thought isn't it.

It's almost as if you play 7 of them in addition to a card in your extra deck that lets you pull them from deck. I'm going to let you in on another amazing thought. You apparently don't have Dragons, but you also don't have Hieratics or you could just Atum into a Dragon. Well you've still got 6 cards in your hand and you had to draw something. So you're saying that I didn't draw Hieratics or a Dragon in my Hieratic Dragon Ruler deck? Did you know if you don't draw Fire Fist cards in your Fire Fist deck that deck won't function either? I think you have to draw Spellbooks in your Spellbook deck to make that one work as well. Really those 6 cards can't be nothing. Are they 6 of the 7 defense cards in the deck? Like is this what we're arguing for?

Paraliel

Posted 22 January 2014 - 02:30 AM

Paraliel

Angel of Inevitability

+Ancient Moderoid

7501 posts

Patrick you are taking what I said out of context. I am not arguing that you won't draw the Dragon Rulers, I am arguing that decks can play their own unfair cards and use trap cards and cards like D.D. Crow game 2 to keep them from even being a variable.

Urthor

Posted 22 January 2014 - 02:31 AM

Do you know what Seal does? It actually lets you summon a free card every turn. You aren't going to have a free backrow to match it every turn.

Do you know what tower does? It actually lets me draw twice per turn. Does that mean spellbook is the best deck?

Hoban you're acting like the MTG scrubs who say "wow my deck tops out at Griselbrand, I summon Griselbrand you lose, therefore my deck is better." Hieratic is really, really, good. But you're justifying the deck in discussion solely by citing a list of what it tops out at, what it does if every combo goes your way.

The difference between hieratic being the best deck, and merely being the second or third deck that has this pretty good matchup with fire but loses to itself and x rogue match-ups, is whether the entire process along the way that leads to your top is strong enough for it to be the best deck, and endure in a swiss where you will play awkward Prophecy matchups and possibly random stuff like Constellar set 4.

Remember, YCS don't have top cuts no more. You're drafting in there. Atm deck building has to shift a lot of the time from "what's the best deck to win the YCS," where you're playing the swiss and your 4-5 top cut matches against the best decks from average to good players, to "what can I do to maximise my chances of surviving swiss to allow me the chance to play draft."

Posted 22 January 2014 - 02:31 AM

Patrick Hoban

Posted 22 January 2014 - 02:34 AM

Patrick Hoban

The Forbidden One

Duelist

10032 posts

Patrick you are taking what I said out of context. I am not arguing that you won't draw the Dragon Rulers, I am arguing that decks can play their own unfair cards and use trap cards and cards like D.D. Crow game 2 to keep them from even being a variable.

Paraliel

Posted 22 January 2014 - 02:34 AM

Paraliel

Angel of Inevitability

+Ancient Moderoid

7501 posts

Patrick you are taking what I said out of context. I am not arguing that you won't draw the Dragon Rulers, I am arguing that decks can play their own unfair cards and use trap cards and cards like D.D. Crow game 2 to keep them from even being a variable.

Patrick Hoban

Posted 22 January 2014 - 02:38 AM

Do you know what Seal does? It actually lets you summon a free card every turn. You aren't going to have a free backrow to match it every turn.

Do you know what tower does? It actually lets me draw twice per turn. Does that mean spellbook is the best deck?

Hoban you're acting like the MTG scrubs who say "wow my deck tops out at Griselbrand, I summon Griselbrand you lose, therefore my deck is better." Hieratic is really, really, good. But you're justifying the deck in discussion solely by citing a list of what it tops out at, what it does if every combo goes your way.

The difference between hieratic being the best deck, and merely being the second or third deck that has this pretty good matchup with fire but loses to itself and x rogue match-ups, is whether the entire process along the way that leads to your top is strong enough for it to be the best deck, and endure in a swiss where you will play awkward Prophecy matchups and possibly random stuff like Constellar set 4.

Remember, YCS don't have top cuts no more. You're drafting in there. Atm deck building has to shift a lot of the time from "what's the best deck to win the YCS," where you're playing the swiss and your 4-5 top cut matches against the best decks from average to good players, to "what can I do to maximise my chances of surviving swiss to allow me the chance to play draft."

Spellbooks are the most flawed deck ever printed. Tower is certainly an unfair card, but it's a drop in the water bucket as that, World, and Fate are the only cards that even come close to fitting the bill. The rest of the deck is filled with deckbuilding paradoxes such as running 3 Crescent despite the fact that's not what a 3 of should be, but being forced to so it doesn't lose every game to itself. Amplified by infinite normal summons and the entire deck coming with a "once per turn" clause, yet playing most so many cards in multiples is once again not how you build a deck, but you'd never get to 40 otherwise.

Squiddy

Posted 22 January 2014 - 02:38 AM

Squiddy

hey look a blak guy

Duelist

1494 posts

i dont think we can say this deck is bad just yet, its a new deck comapired to fire fist that had 2 formats of testing and building until a builds were perfected but this hieratic dragon just came up this format and noone has tested for to long... hieratics were always a deck but it was never strong enough that good players were playing with it consistently. maybe patrick found out about the deck at the beginning of the format either way he probably has a lot more testing with it then we do so its hard to just say the deck is easily beaten by looking at it and carts like dd crow on paper

Camel

Posted 22 January 2014 - 02:40 AM

Atlanta will be an interesting event, but laughter twist being top 16 is draft. Luckily FF is keeping Swarms from lurking its head. This event will defiantly be a grind.

The huge factor difference between Nashville and Atlanta will be the existence of Number 101: Silent Honor ARK. In testing the ability to just suck up a Dragon Ruler is pretty ridiculous. As Hoban has said, Defense is the Key for this deck success. Playing extra vanillas is not the answer or Nebthet.

Dubkdad1

Posted 22 January 2014 - 02:43 AM

Dubkdad1

your daddy

Duelist

2481 posts

I think the point here is that the current versions of the Ruler variant are too slow in setting up. A fire fist deck can draw 1 Bear and defensive traps and control the game from there. Does the current version of this deck have a similar play? No, it does not. The versions floating around seem as if they are trying to emulate a slow control deck when there is simply not enough space to do so. YES, the Rulers are free...eventually. While I'm waiting to get my Rulers online using the current versions, I'm getting poked to death by Bear, getting rick rolled by 1 card 101s, 1 card Tiger Kings, 1 card Kagetsuchis, etc. The answer is to come up with a way to have a consistent 1st turn set up going 1st and consistent response to an established board going second. I don't want to be playing the "grind game" versus a deck that is specifically designed to do so. I'm going to play Nebthet as it is another combo piece, another dragon to fuel the Rulers, and it allows me to OTK more consistently.

Patrick Hoban

Posted 22 January 2014 - 02:44 AM

Patrick Hoban

The Forbidden One

Duelist

10032 posts

Patrick you are taking what I said out of context. I am not arguing that you won't draw the Dragon Rulers, I am arguing that decks can play their own unfair cards and use trap cards and cards like D.D. Crow game 2 to keep them from even being a variable.

Fire is literally the definition of fair. There are no unfair cards.

Decks like Geargias still exist.

I'm pretty sure a large portion of this conversation was specifically dealing with Fire vs Hieratic, but okay.

I'd consider Geargia the second best deck. It's consistent and is capable of unfair things.

Also cards like Crow and Bottomless suck. Really every card that has to be drawn before a field is established sucks. Bottomless on Blaster might be good when it works, but it's very high risk. As many games as you think that will win you, how many games do you lose when you draw it after the fact? We're talking in terms of a better deck. Your deck can only compete by playing these cards that either work really well or are really awful? It sounds like I could just play the better deck and fill those spots with cards that will be consistently good and just have the better deck.

Patrick Hoban

Posted 22 January 2014 - 02:46 AM

So instead of actually reading the post, you just respond to the metaphor in the actual most literal sense like you think I've never played spellbooks. Am I reading a post by Allen Pennington?

Sure, the metaphor was shit, how about that? I could play these unfair cards in a deck that has all these problems, or I could play other unfair cards in a different deck with fewer problems. Is the first one better because it has a couple unfair cards too?

Patrick Hoban

Posted 22 January 2014 - 02:48 AM

Patrick Hoban

The Forbidden One

Duelist

10032 posts

Oh I forgot to respond to the part where Urthor said you shouldn't have always played for swiss, regardless of what top cut was. That's also incorrect and you should always play for what you will play in swiss, not top cut.

Urthor

Posted 22 January 2014 - 03:00 AM

Urthor

Earth-Or

+War Captain+

12925 posts

I think the point here is that the current versions of the Ruler variant are too slow in setting up. A fire fist deck can draw 1 Bear and defensive traps and control the game from there. Does the current version of this deck have a similar play? No, it does not. The versions floating around seem as if they are trying to emulate a slow control deck when there is simply not enough space to do so. YES, the Rulers are free...eventually. While I'm waiting to get my Rulers online using the current versions, I'm getting poked to death by Bear, getting rick rolled by 1 card 101s, 1 card Tiger Kings, 1 card Kagetsuchis, etc. The answer is to come up with a way to have a consistent 1st turn set up going 1st and consistent response to an established board going second. I don't want to be playing the "grind game" versus a deck that is specifically designed to do so. I'm going to play Nebthet as it is another combo piece, another dragon to fuel the Rulers, and it allows me to OTK more consistently.

The consistent turn 1 play is eset, su, overlay to atum summon edragon pass. A T1 WU carrier and a free edragon/2800 attack WU rabbit is a pretty unreal play by any stretch of the imagination. Concluding the deck is too slow, in fact making many conclusions here, is just so silly.

Any argument for playing Nebthet other than "oh it's another random combo piece is bad." You shouldn't be trading maindeck slots for additional options unless those options are really really overwhelmingly good, and nebthet into volcasaurus isn't close to worth it.

And the argument against using nebthet as a combo piece is rock solid. Nebthet will never turn a su or a teftnut or an eset into a two card combo that goes into atum. it can only extend existing two card hieratic combos into three card combos.

That's a very very very good reason not to play it. It doesn't make your t1s more consistent at all. It just acts as doublewin.

So instead of actually reading the post, you just respond to the metaphor in the actual most literal sense like you think I've never played spellbooks. Am I reading a post by Allen Pennington?

Sure, the metaphor was shit, how about that? I could play these unfair cards in a deck that has all these problems, or I could play other unfair cards in a different deck with fewer problems. Is the first one better because it has a couple unfair cards too?

The metaphor was an analogy for your shitty "wow I do this, lets just take these plays out of the context that they came from and list all the things hieratics do" argument for this being the best deck, instead of actually going about the process of affirming hieratic is actually capable of smoothly setting up consistantly and going through it's plays which was the actual point. You're playing a combo deck at the end of the day, that, needs, to, combo. That will always be the risk with hieratic.

It may consistently win X% of the time, but it will always consistently lose to a range of decks Y% of the time, because it's such a combo deck. And it's going to have a target on it's back. And fire gets these two not very good vs hieratic but still valuable XYZs. The equation of "hieratic=best" isn't a simple as you keep saying it is.

Not that hieratic couldn't be the best. It definitely could.

Oh I forgot to respond to the part where Urthor said you shouldn't have always played for swiss, regardless of what top cut was. That's also incorrect and you should always play for what you will play in swiss, not top cut.

Playing for top cut is a fair strategy, I think at one point Jeff said Billy always plays decks that are designed to win the YCS, because he values getting a win more than just plain topping. Like as an aside.

So ok then. Are you capable of saying between now and Atlanta Patrick, no I'm not going to play a lot of fire decks in swiss, a I'm going to play a lot of other decks, and therefore I should not play hieratics even though it's my baby and I think it's the best deck? That's what I seriously doubt you are capable of, putting the deck down if it actually isn't the best choice. If it is obv it doesn't matter, but from knowing you you'd be incapable of dropping this deck if something else edges it out slightly.

Dubkdad1

Posted 22 January 2014 - 03:03 AM

Dubkdad1

your daddy

Duelist

2481 posts

@ Urthor

Earlier, you berated August for negging your post without a post explaining himself. You care to explain your neg?

(nvm, you just posted)

@ Patrick

I chatted with you the other night and learned a lot from our conversation. It was that conversation that forced me to rethink many of the ideas that I had about the deck. I finally came to the conclusion that I just want to end the game as soon as possible instead of trying to make every game a grind game vs other "fair" decks. Your apparent skill at the game could very well be the reason that you won many of your matches, much like how JJ smashed Silva in the "Bash in the Nash." I'm sure you would never lose to any Harpie deck, but JJs skill was just miles above Silvas. I don't have that skill, nor do I have infinite time to develop it. Instead, I want a way to just end the game right then and there.

Patrick Hoban

Posted 22 January 2014 - 03:15 AM

Patrick Hoban

The Forbidden One

Duelist

10032 posts

I think the point here is that the current versions of the Ruler variant are too slow in setting up. A fire fist deck can draw 1 Bear and defensive traps and control the game from there. Does the current version of this deck have a similar play? No, it does not. The versions floating around seem as if they are trying to emulate a slow control deck when there is simply not enough space to do so. YES, the Rulers are free...eventually. While I'm waiting to get my Rulers online using the current versions, I'm getting poked to death by Bear, getting rick rolled by 1 card 101s, 1 card Tiger Kings, 1 card Kagetsuchis, etc. The answer is to come up with a way to have a consistent 1st turn set up going 1st and consistent response to an established board going second. I don't want to be playing the "grind game" versus a deck that is specifically designed to do so. I'm going to play Nebthet as it is another combo piece, another dragon to fuel the Rulers, and it allows me to OTK more consistently.

The consistent turn 1 play is eset, su, overlay to atum summon edragon pass. A T1 WU carrier and a free edragon/2800 attack WU rabbit is a pretty unreal play by any stretch of the imagination. Concluding the deck is too slow, in fact making many conclusions here, is just so silly.

Any argument for playing Nebthet other than "oh it's another random combo piece is bad." You shouldn't be trading maindeck slots for additional options unless those options are really really overwhelmingly good, and nebthet into volcasaurus isn't close to worth it.

And the argument against using nebthet as a combo piece is rock solid. Nebthet will never turn a su or a teftnut or an eset into a two card combo that goes into atum. it can only extend existing two card hieratic combos into three card combos. That's a very very very good reason not to play it.

>>

So instead of actually reading the post, you just respond to the metaphor in the actual most literal sense like you think I've never played spellbooks. Am I reading a post by Allen Pennington?

Sure, the metaphor was shit, how about that? I could play these unfair cards in a deck that has all these problems, or I could play other unfair cards in a different deck with fewer problems. Is the first one better because it has a couple unfair cards too?

The metaphor was an analogy for your shitty "wow I do this, lets just take these plays out of the context that they came from and list all the things hieratics do" argument for this being the best deck, instead of actually going about the process of affirming hieratic is actually capable of smoothly setting up consistantly and going through it's plays which was the actual point. You're playing a combo deck at the end of the day, that, needs, to, combo. That will always be the risk with hieratic.

It may consistently win X% of the time, but it will always consistently lose to a range of decks Y% of the time, because it's such a combo deck. And it's going to have a target on it's back. And fire gets these two not very good vs hieratic but still valuable XYZs. The equation of "hieratic=best" isn't a simple as you keep saying it is.

Oh I forgot to respond to the part where Urthor said you shouldn't have always played for swiss, regardless of what top cut was. That's also incorrect and you should always play for what you will play in swiss, not top cut.

Playing for top cut is a fair strategy, I think at one point Jeff said BIlly always plays decks that are designed to win the YCS, because he values getting a win more than just plain topping. Like as an aside.

So ok then. Are you capable of saying between now and Atlanta Patrick, no I'm not going to play a lot of fire decks in swiss, a I'm going to play a lot of other decks, and therefore I should not play hieratics even though it's my baby and I think it's the best deck? That's what I seriously doubt you are capable of, putting the deck down if it actually isn't the best choice. If it is obv it doesn't matter, but from knowing you you'd be incapable of dropping this deck if something else edges it out slightly.

You're mistaking combo deck for being a sub par deck. They're only ever sub par if you build them as such like adding MSTs. Combo decks need cards, you shouldn't play cards that take away from both players like that. Especially magnified by Dragon Rulers just being good vs backrow.

I don't know if you notice, but whatever the best deck is always in theory has a bad anti meta matchup. Dragons vs Evilswarm? Oh it seems like Dragons can't play. Well it's actually just outweighed by Dragons being a better deck. Not all things are weighted equally and the fact that Dragons were just better was more than enough to consistently beat a deck it theoretically couldn't even play against. Really the same thing applies here. You can give all the hypotheticals you want about why this deck has a bad matchup to this other deck, but really it's just a better deck and that outweighs most of them.

Also I don't know what made you develop that opinion specifically dealing with me. I'm going to play the best deck because it'd be the wrong decision to not. I'm not going to intentionally put myself at a disadvantage. Let's look at Dragons and Dragunity last format. I made the Dragunity deck, won an event with it, topped another 3 with it, and wrote an article on why it was better than the standard. Well as the standard build progressed it became the better deck and at which point I played it the last 2 events of the format because I'm not going to disadvantage myself by playing something else than what's going to give me the best chance. If I had thought Dragunity was better I'd have played them, I don't know why you think this is any different.